(spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 02:32 AM) [post=43405]Very succinct Max however you should not forget your allies. [/b] Absolutely. Although the Canadians, Kiwis and Australians were part of the British Army, were they not?
(spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 05:32 AM) [post=43405](Max (UK) @ Dec 20 2005, 02:57 AM) [post=43374](spidge @ Dec 19 2005, 01:00 PM) [post=43366]what was there to stop them arriving on the beaches? What was going to stop them getting off the beaches? What was going to stop them when/if they left the beaches? [/b] The British. The British. The British. images/smilies/default/cool.gif [/b] Also a collection of other European and Commonwealth forces which I do not have the figures on. (anybody?) [/b] From about 50 000 Polish soldiers fought defending France only about 20 000 men were able to withdraw to Great Britain.
(Max (UK) @ Dec 20 2005, 10:01 PM) [post=43419](spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 02:32 AM) [post=43405]Very succinct Max however you should not forget your allies. [/b] Absolutely. Although the Canadians, Kiwis and Australians were part of the British Army, were they not? [/b] No! I assume that was said "tongue in cheek"
(spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 11:35 AM) [post=43422](Max (UK) @ Dec 20 2005, 10:01 PM) [post=43419](spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 02:32 AM) [post=43405]Very succinct Max however you should not forget your allies. [/b] Absolutely. Although the Canadians, Kiwis and Australians were part of the British Army, were they not? [/b] No! I assume that was said "tongue in cheek" [/b] Oh Oh!!! Run for Cover!!! Of all the wrong things to say Max, saying that the Canadians, New Zealanders and Australians were part of the British Army was pretty much top of the list
(Tonym @ Dec 13 2005, 03:25 PM) [post=43086]The impression that I get from the original questioners comments is that we were all quivering with fear at the prospect of a German invasion after Dunkirk ......[/b] Personal recollections (from my Web page) .......... The only time I was really scared during the war was the end of May and the beginning of June 1940 -- the collapse of Belgium, evacuation of the BEF at Dunkirk, surrender of France, Nazi occupation of Holland/Denmark/Norway -- Britain was alone -- what was next? -- talk of invasion was everywhere. Britain was not completely alone -- countries throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth sent large numbers of soldiers, sailors and airmen to defend the mother country. There were also substantial numbers of Free French, Poles, Czechs, et al. who came to serve in Britain after the fall of their own countries. They all contributed mightily to the Allied cause throughout the war. We all knew that things were really grave in the last week of May and the first week of June, 1940. The reins of government had changed hands -- Neville Chamberlain was out and Winston Churchill was the new Prime Minister. The country now pinned its hopes on Churchill as the person who would lead us through the war -- "Winnie" was our man! The waning days of May and the first week of June were indeed scary -- in the aftermath of Dunkirk there were rumblings afoot that the War Cabinet was debating whether to sue for peace with Hitler -- the unthinkable -- Capitulation! Only later did we learn just how close we came to doing just that and of the colossal struggle between Churchill and Lord Halifax (the Foreign Secretary and the leading appeaser) in the tense War Cabinet meetings. Although Lancashire, where I lived, was removed from the initial war action, everybody there pretty well understood the gravity of the situation after Dunkirk and realized that we were now fighting for our very survival as a Nation. I don't recall any real panic or a pervading sense of doom and gloom. There seemed to be a general consensus that we would weather the storm and win the war eventually -- I know that I always held that view. At the local level people seemed to accept that we would probably soon experience air raids and that hard times (rationing and shortages) lay ahead.
(Gotthard Heinrici @ Dec 20 2005, 12:41 PM) [post=43429] Oh Oh!!! Run for Cover!!! [/b] I'm running, I'm hiding !! images/smilies/default/ohmy.gif
(spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 03:36 AM) [post=43406](Tonym @ Dec 14 2005, 02:25 AM) [post=43086]The impression that I get from the original questioners comments is that we were all quivering with fear at the prospect of a German invasion after Dunkirk. Far from it, concerned proberbly, but the British character was, and hopefully still is, a bit more resourceful than the precise German Military Machine. After all who brought all those troops back from the beaches of Dunkirk, a fair number of militarily untrained civilians had a bit of a hand in it and a few thousand other civilians did not buckle under the bombings of London, Coventry, Liverpool, etc.. He might have gained a foothold but life would not have been easy for him I am convinced that the British Resistance would have prevailed. The Romans gave up only the Normans succeeded but then we are their descendents. Keep in mind also that Hitler was looking over his shoulder towards the Russians at his rear. Sorry, but I am still convinced that we may have struggled for a bit but still would have won. I was there and knew how my colleagues felt. Tonym [/b] Hi TonyM, Wrong impression totally. The British heirarchy was a little more than concerned with good cause because they knew the state of affairs and knew that Britain was as vulnerable as it had ever been since 1066. The question is a hyperthetical pure and simple based on something that did not happen, not something that may have altered an outcome. With air supremacy, could the Sealion invasion have succeeded? Besides the tenacity of the "British Bulldog" what plans were in place to disrupt those intentions. [/b]
I think that most of us of my generation are now well aware of the the attitude of a section of the 'British Hierarchy and Aristocracy', an attitude I imagine of self-preservation. Fortunately most of us were concerned with national-preservation and I think that the vast majority of Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, South Africans etc. etc. and the English, who were all members of the "British Empire" of the time earned the title of 'British Subject'. So as MaxUK says = The British - The British - The British and correct me if I am wrong most of our Colonial Brothers were here out of patriotism, I believe all the Canadians,at least, were volunteers. So let us not get misled by some modern political emotions. As I implied in my original post we may have had a bit of a rough time but the "Bulldog" would have survived. Tonym
(Gnomey @ Dec 20 2005, 04:58 AM) [post=43412]The Gigant wasn't around in 1940, the prototype only flew in the middle of 1941 so the Germans would have had no large capacity glider avaliable for Sealion. Jim read the quote about port capacities even with the ports opened there would not have been nearly enough supplies for the Germans to sustain the invasion. The tanks would have ground to a halt had the ports taken longer than anticipated to open and remember the Germans still had no anti-tank gun that could take out the Matilda II ("The Queen of the Desert") as the '88' hadn't been used in that role yet. As a result get a few Matildas close to the beachheads and you have a situation similar to that with the Tigers, Panthers and King Tigers could have had in Normandy. The British would have done everything they could to stop the invasion succeeding and with the initial plan for the invasion even with no RAF, their chances of repelling the invasion if they organised correctly were very high. [/b] The Germans had until mid 1942 to control the island. The Gigant was designed for the invasion of Britain. It could have been sped into service, it was a glider, that takes no "big technological breakthrough" that takes very little time to develop test and build. The failure to eradicate the RAF was why Hitler put the invasion on the back burner. The Matilda II would have been destroyed with Stukas just as they were in France and in the dessert. There is no question of the efficacy of tactical-air throughout WWII. It won virtually every battle involving tanks. The biggest problem in Britain would have been moving them around. The Germans would have destroyed or captured bridges to isolate the beach and setup a beachhead. There seems to be a feeling here that if everything doesn't happen at one time it cannot happen at all. I honestly disagree with that. They call "artillery the queen of the battlefield" but I have yet to hear of a piece survive a direct hit from a fighter/bomber. Everything is vulnerable to air attack. Things that have strength (deep bunkers and such) are overcome by the invention or variation on other technologies which happens rapidly in a war. Necessity is the mother of invention. What the Germans came up with in WWII (which were some innovative things) were often a result of what they "needed" at the time. Same with crossing the channel. Other than the BofB they had little need of doing a beach landing. In fact they thought they were in for a long sustained fight on the continent. It was surprising to them what aerial attacks had brought to warfare. No one in their wildest mind would have predicted that they would have conquered Europe so fast. Not even them. This means their developments were geared for producing weapons and innovations for a continental thrust. If the Germans had focused on the eradication of the RAF even sending saboteurs to the RAF airfields, and not been distracted by bombing militarily useless targets the RAF would have been conquered in the middle of 1940. They could have pressed into production Channel crossing innovations, ship destroying innovations and began to patrol Britain looking for targets of opportunity much like the Allies did in Normandy. The real problem was that Hitler was running the war and he was a military strategic and tactical idiot. This greatly weakened Germany’s effectiveness and ability to win. I said I believed that Germany underestimated the fighting ability of Britain after Dunkirk, I really meant to say that Hitler underestimated their ability. I have never questioned the British courage and resolve to defend their Island. I don’t doubt fighting on the island would not be “nightmarish” for the Germans because most Brits wouldn’t give up while they were still alive. I just think that Germany held the major trump card at the time and that eventually the Allies held that trump card. Whoever holds the trump card and uses it properly wins the game. That trump card of course is air. The fact is, she was caught with her pants down. This could have cost them everything. By 1943 the war was decided. Before that it was not only in doubt but the British standing alone were ill-prepared for such a war (as were any of the allies) and highly vulnerable to the machine Germany had produced. You have to give the Germans their due. You did not beat a weak enemy you beat a stronger one. WWII was brains over brawn.
(Max (UK) @ Dec 20 2005, 06:01 AM) [post=43419](spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 02:32 AM) [post=43405]Very succinct Max however you should not forget your allies. [/b] Absolutely. Although the Canadians, Kiwis and Australians were part of the British Army, were they not? [/b]This is probably why most of the world is not aware of the contribution of these other nations to WWII. From everything I have read these nations demanded very little and gave virtually all they had. I don't know if it was Monty's lust for complete fame that overshadowed these nations or just the fact that the British were so proud of their accomplishments they forgot about their faithful allies. I have never been around the British culture so I don't know if it is true or not but they are rumored to be a bit snobbish. If it’s true then that might explain why the other nations are not a part of the yearly celebrations. The true honor and character of a nation is not how much she can stand alone and defend herself, but rather what kind of friends she has and how she treats them. There is no greater sign of a successful nation than the willingness of other nations to stand with her and vice versa. I know the Canadians, Kiwis, Australians, Poles, French, etc, were not a part of the British army, but when it came to celebrating the successes of WWII they should be treated as though they were.
The Germans had until mid 1942 to control the island. No. By the spring of 1941 the land defences of Britain were too powerful for any invasion. The Gigant was designed for the invasion of Britain. It could have been sped into service, it was a glider, that takes no "big technological breakthrough" that takes very little time to develop test and build. I'm stunned that you as a pilot could state such obvious nonsense. Of course the designers need time to build it, they hadn't built anything that big before. The Matilda II would have been destroyed with Stukas just as they were in France and in the dessert. I have never read any accounts of a British tank attack being stopped by Stukas. In France and the desert it was the 88 A/T which defeated the Matildas. There is no question of the efficacy of tactical-air throughout WWII. It won virtually every battle involving tanks. Nonsense While command of the air was important, it wasn't a war winner on its own. It was the troops on the ground who decided how the battle went.
Tony, Read my lips. Australians are not British. We, as did the other countries of the Commonwealth, stood proudly with Britain against the tyranny of Hitler & Mussolini. Australian Federation was in 1901. You need to purchase a new history book. Australia and others declared war on Germany at the same time as Britain and France because they were part of the "Empire" not because they were British! Britain "requested" our assistance and we gave it unequivocally. Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa etc etc were assembled by the Governments of those countries to assist Britain in her time of need as we (Australia) did in 1914-1918. Volunteers were called by the government of Australia because "regular" Australian troops were not allowed to be used outside of Australia. You will find that such was the case in Canada. This only changed when conscription was introduced. With respect to you Tony, that is the most pompous and ridiculous statement you have made. You and Max have erred terribly with your statements. You are the one who is unable to admit that you have made a mistake and have gone for "modern political emotions" There was nothing "political" in my statement only pride. Tonym [/quote] The post was not questioning the "Bulldog". This is a forum for opinion, discussion, debate and knowledge. The question was how would Britain have defeated or repulsed the invasion in September 1940 without control of the air. Most members are discussing this in the spirit of the question. I have already been presented with figures of, tanks, armour, guns, artillery, strategies that I and may I say others were not aware of. We would have been victorious is not in question. What I want know is how!!!!!!!
Interesting site redcoat, it shows that although the Germans could have got ashore, the original plan was never going to succeed (which I have always believed). Although both sides suffered heavy losses the RN could afford them better than the KM and as result the RN would have one but it never happened and the rest as they say is history.
Jimbo I am afraid that your examples don't even come close Lets take it one step at a time Level Bombers I have gone to great lengths to ask for examples of Capital ships being sunk by level bombers and that you would be hard pushed to find many examples of DD's being sunk by level bombers. You have failed to to do this. The Arizona was of course tied up alongside, in port in a peacetime environment with watertight doors open and most of the crew on leave. Not exactly the same as preparing to attack the enemy on a full war footing with room to evade attack. I ask again for examples. The idea of dropping magnetic mines around the RN ships is imaginative that I grant. However there are a few problems. a) They are big and each plane could only carry one. images/smilies/default/cool.gif They come down by parachute giving us plenty of time to evade. c) Our ships were degaussed which meant that they wouldn’t work Gliders The ones that you have available only carry 8 men Crossing the Channel The Italian Navy didn’t have any tank landing craft either Taking a port Ever heard of Dieppe? Ports were the one area where defences would have been concentrated. Room to manoeuvre I suspect that you are not a Naval person. Hiding doesn’t work as you will be spotted and then you are a sitting duck. Your best chance is to get into open sea and manoeuvre. On U Boat I repeat again they never operated well in the channel am happy to be proved wrong on this if you can find examples. German E Boats They were good boats but small in number. Ours would be attacking the landing ships which would be defenceless. The E Boats would be attacking the RN which would have taken some losses but was well equipped to deal with them. Flares at night A number of the RN ships had radar and would have been able to hunt down and destroy the German vessels. The German Navy would have been destroyed if they had come out to fight the RN and you didn’t have radar on your destroyers and escorts. This is one reason why on my first post I asked you to come at night. Enigma Would tell us who was coming, when they were coming and where they were going. Sufficient to prepare I think you will agree I am afraid that your theory was an interesting one but as a plan one doomed to failure
(spidge @ Dec 20 2005, 06:15 PM) [post=43456]Read my lips. Australians are not British. We, as did the other countries of the Commonwealth, stood proudly with Britain against the tyranny of Hitler & Mussolini. Australian Federation was in 1901. You need to purchase a new history book. [/b] I think you can make a case that the Australians were still a colony to the British empire just as much as you can make a case the same case the US was still a colony. Don't mistake alliance with subservience. Both originated from the original British Empire but both were unequivocally sovereign by the time WWII broke out. Though sometimes when discussions track this way I think some Brits thought of the US as a lap dog of theirs. I believe this is what provoked Patton’s wrathful request to Bradley to let him pull another Dunkirk on Monty to close the Falaise gap. For those of you who have this or that against Churchill or believe that the war could have been won without him, you must not forget how graciously Churchill kept the “cousins” from fighting. They Americans were not as incapable as the British military aristocracy thought they were in fact the US generals believed the opposite. There were many occasions it almost came to blows. In fact after the North African and Sicily campaigns, Patton pushed for separate assaults and separate armies. He claimed the assaults on the beaches were too close together and could have been obliterated if the Germans had been able to get armor there in time. We all owe a debt to WSC for his diplomacy. The British and the Americans were too independent and to different philosophically to have gotten along without a master soother like MSC. Like I have stated before, if Hitler had known anything about the man and what he really meant to the Allies he would have assassinated him as quickly as possible. Hitler was the best ally the Allies had.
I am afraid that your theory was an interesting one but as a plan one doomed to failure Indeed. Hoping that a plan that would involve way less German soldiers than during the Crete campaign, against way more British soldiers than in Crete, was supposed to work is laughable to say the least.
(Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Level Bombers I have gone to great lengths to ask for examples of Capital ships being sunk by level bombers and that you would be hard pushed to find many examples of DD's being sunk by level bombers. You have failed to to do this. The Arizona was of course tied up alongside, in port in a peacetime environment with watertight doors open and most of the crew on leave. Not exactly the same as preparing to attack the enemy on a full war footing with room to evade attack. I ask again for examples. The idea of dropping magnetic mines around the RN ships is imaginative that I grant. However there are a few problems. a) They are big and each plane could only carry one. images/smilies/default/cool.gif They come down by parachute giving us plenty of time to evade. c) Our ships were degaussed which meant that they wouldn’t work [/b] It does not matter that the Arizona was tied up. The main thing was that small level bombers (not as big as the German bombers) managed to drop a single bomb to that took her to the bottom. You said that could not happen. Know that we know the bombs carried by both the massive quantities of level and dive bombers are perfectly capable of sinking any ship the British have, I think we can access this issue with more clarity. You are saying “Yes the dive bombers would sink them, but the level bombers could not”. Now we know the only reason the level bombers could not sink them is because you say they could turn that huge ship too fast. This is what you are banking England on. The ability of a sea captain to dodge a bomb that is being dropped. At 10000 feet a bomb reaches terminal velocity. If it starts at 12000 feet it is at terminal velocity. For most objects of that size terminal velocity is about 650 mph (close to the speed of sound). At this speed a bomb drops at almost a 1000 feet per second (950mph) which means from the time it falls 2000 feet from the plane dropping at 12000 feet you have 10 seconds to determine if it is moving to the right of you, the left of you or right down the center and then making the correct move that moves the ship to avoid it. To determine this you might take 3 seconds if you are fast and once second to tell the steersman to turn the ship. This means you have six seconds to move a huge battle ship which does not turn on a dime and move it enough feet to avoid the bomb. Then you are hoping that they are not staggering the bombs which fall some earlier some later that pepper the area it is targeting. (look again at the picture of the Hiryu I posted and look at the spread of bombs). As I said you are going to have a pattern of about 10 of these at any one point as wide as there are bombers in formation. The odds of you surviving that are ridiculously low. I am sorry friend but that dog won’t hunt. Your ship is gonner just as the Arizona was. In 6 seconds you can’t maneuver out of the pattern of bombs being dropped on you and it does not matter if you were tied down. In addition, the bombardier could guess whether or not your maneuver would be left or right and 50 percent of them would be dropped right down the center line of your ship because you steered into them. This just seems like a laughable argument. There is no sea captain in the history of time that would want to see level bombers coming at his ship with ship sinking bombs. That’s like playing Russian Roulette with 5 of the chambers filled and only one empty. The odds are greatly against you getting severely damaged. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Gliders The ones that you have available only carry 8 men [/b] Before the invasion in say the middle of 1941, you would have Gigants and probably earlier if the RAF had been eliminated, production would have been sped up. Heck they already had the plans for the Gigant in 1940. They were testing it. The service delivery was June of 1941. They still have 6 months to get on the island. It had flown in March of 1941, so they could have pressed it into service then if need be. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Crossing the Channel The Italian Navy didn’t have any tank landing craft either [/b] The Germans had MFPs in 1941 which would have been able to carry several Tigers each. They were big boats. But the Japanese certainly had them. That’s where we got the idea for the Higgins boats. Someone showed Higgins a picture of Japanese landing craft. So getting to the beaches before 1942 would be no problem. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Taking a port Ever heard of Dieppe? Ports were the one area where defences would have been concentrated. [/b] There is no defense against fighter/bombers. No matter how trained or how brave or how many there are, no man can keep his molecules from disintegrating when an aerial bomb falls on them. Besides, had you have concentrated defenses, that makes you easier to kill. Kill all the defenses then they have to deplete other ports and then take one of those. This is not rocket science people. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Room to manoeuvre I suspect that you are not a Naval person. Hiding doesn’t work as you will be spotted and then you are a sitting duck. Your best chance is to get into open sea and manoeuvre. [/b] Yes, this is the story of Midway. You must not be a pilot and realize how much more maneuverable an aircraft is than a large ship. They always talk about the amount of space required to turn a battleship around. They are not as nimble as you think. Tanks were usually taken out by aircraft and they are far more nimble than any ship could imagine in fact they can come to a complete halt. You should go read of the demise of the Germans in operation COBRA. There was nowhere to run or hide from the bombers for man or machine. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]On U Boat I repeat again they never operated well in the channel am happy to be proved wrong on this if you can find examples. [/b] U-Boats operate where the transport boats were. There were few boats that ever entered in the Channel for fear of being sunk by strafing aircraft if not from mines. Just because things were not done because they were not necessary does not mean they couldn’t have been done. This seems to be a recurring argument that makes no sense to me. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]German E Boats They were good boats but small in number. Ours would be attacking the landing ships which would be defenceless. The E Boats would be attacking the RN which would have taken some losses but was well equipped to deal with them. [/b] German E-boats were faster than any British ship and carried torpedoes. Under air cover an e-boat could operate with relative impunity as the probability of being hit by a ship’s guns is remote but the probability of hitting the ship is pretty good. British E-boats could not risk pursuing the German E-Boats for risk of air cover sinking them. A plane it the natural enemy to a torpedo boat. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Flares at night A number of the RN ships had radar and would have been able to hunt down and destroy the German vessels. The German Navy would have been destroyed if they had come out to fight the RN and you didn’t have radar on your destroyers and escorts. This is one reason why on my first post I asked you to come at night. [/b] Radar has a limited range of about 20 miles. The Germans had radar in planes as well. To use it you would have to be in the Channel. If you are in the channel you stand a good chance of being sunk. If you are at the middle of the Channel at night and even managed to avoid detection by patrolling subs or aircraft, you can’t get out of the Channel before day break so you will see an attack. Again, I am amazed at the faith and perception of impunity you give to navy ships. I am quite frankly astonished. Do you not remember that I told you that a torpedo was mounted on a PBY and sunk a Japanese oiler at Midway? Do you know realize the significance of this? The PBY is the least likely of all planes to sink ships. It is slow and lumbering and easy to shoot down. If you can attach a torpedo to it you can certainly attach one to a JU-88 that can go 350 mph. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]Enigma Would tell us who was coming, when they were coming and where they were going. Sufficient to prepare I think you will agree [/b] Like I said, the Germans could have broadcast out into the open and you still could not have done anything about it. (Glider @ Dec 20 2005, 06:32 PM) [post=43459]I am afraid that your theory was an interesting one but as a plan one doomed to failure [/b] I don’t think bravado changes reality. Saying a plan is doomed to failure is different than a plan being doomed to failure. If I had to bet on one side, I have to bet on the side of the Germans just from understanding of their potential and the British vulnerability at the time. Not that I would want that, quite the opposite, but like I said, if Schicklegrubber had kept his paws off, we would all be screwed. The Germans need only get a little armor on the shore somewhere in Britian, anywhere in Britian. At that point, its game over. They can also do this by the Gigants and destroy all the British armor and artillery by air just like we did in Normandy with our air forces. In defense you have to be correct and ellusive at all times. You have to overcome a very creative and powerful enemy. Its like stopping terrorists. You could do it 100 times but that one time you miss one...
Your ship is gonner just as the Arizona was. And if that was so easy, why did some US ships survive the Pearl Harbor ordeal ? Before the invasion in say the middle of 1941, you would have Gigants Nevermind the fact that by that time, the British Army would have been largely reinforced. The Germans had MFPs in 1941 which would have been able to carry several Tigers each. They were big boats. Nevermind the fact that there was no Tiger I at that time. The Germans had radar in planes as well. Not before 1942. Actually, do you happen to post anything that is supported by historical facts ? I don’t think bravado changes reality. Saying a plan is doomed to failure is different than a plan being doomed to failure. If I had to bet on one side, I have to bet on the side of the Germans just from understanding of their potential and the British vulnerability at the time. Yep indeed. Like I pointed above, we have to think that a ridiculous plan involving less German Soldiers than the Crete Campaign, facing the bulk of the British Army, on British soil, would succeed just because 60 Pz are landed ? Im afraid I was right about the fact that it says more about your hidden phantasms than anything else.
I think I may be the only one here that is able to think of this hypothetical objectively since I as an American, "don't have a dog of pride in this fight". The fact that the Germans were better at the start of WWII should not warrant such contempt for the idea that their creativity was limited to how Hitler fought the BofB. Hitler wasted the Luftwaffe and this worked in Britain's (and the world's) favor. But in a philosophical discussion like this “what if Hitler had let his Generals run the war” requires one to forget about what happened and think about what could have been. Because of the approach Hitler took toward invading Britain, it was poorly executed. This affected every decision made including what would be produced, what size of invasion that was needed, to the priority of the development of different types of equipment, etc. These decisions have a very profound affect on the outcome of the battle. It seems to me that this "hypothetical" battle is argued against with four things that are suspect: 1) that the British would have relied on WWI type defenses like the RN, 2) that the Germans would not have altered their strategy with the proper plans that were proven to be effective in the new war, 3) that it has been forgotten how dominant the Luftwaffe was in France, 4) that the courage and resolve of the British people and remaining forces would have been sufficient to counter such vast tactical disparities as those between the two nations. Most of the counterarguments have not been logical but rather sentimental. It involves a lot of hyperbole that asks us to believe that courage is the sole factor in winning a campaign even against overwhelming strength. This did not work for Poland. To use a poker analogy, in the war, the Germans were “dealt” four aces, and the British had to draw three from the deck having nothing in their hand. It may be that Hitler discarded three of those four aces and kept an ace and a 9, and the Brits ended up winning with two of a kind. But that’s simply not the proper way to play the game and the British were lucky they were opposed by an idiot. Had Hitler had played his aces, he would have won and it would have been the fault of the US for not getting in the game and drawn two of those aces to prevent the Germans from possessing such a hand. To me Britain learned a large lesson as to never again be unprepared for war. The US has learned the same lesson. At the end of 1943, you could make the case that Britain was strong enough to have defeated Germany by herself (the Commonwealth) but before that you can’t make that case without “putting on the dog”. The US had its pants down around its ankles in Hawaii in 1941. They too were taught a lesson that was a bitter pill to swallow. But there is an old saying “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me”. I believe it is apropos in this discussion. Sorry to be the "devil's advocate" in this debate, but then again, I was never trying to win a popularity contest here. How could I expect compete against “spidge” or “Gnomey” or “Morse”? And the fact that I am a Yank…come on…
